News – Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, CNN reported.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
gabriel19671968
rylandl831968
rontravel
dalila.bowle
parkkamits
gabriellesbt
2jojoyo
leeharris1969
nopatacious
rhettdejesus1975
darwinm701977
daviant701973
slashup67
pyuuuke
harleyb761960
adrielh791966
jorgepratt19711962
maneetion
hyooo25
Emmanuel70
aylamayumi
filonov
mp3_music_fan
AutisticPsycho
Radiofreeeuropa
TaylorPo
HelenGonzalez
abhishekkumar
folger576
Tabitha9
735)
Tonkin, Vietnam, etc. For those forget:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/i...
Oh yes! Somebody (senator or congressman) said for us to look out for a "Gulf of Tonkin incident" sometime between about a month ago and the end of Dubbya's reign. He must be psychic. Ok, so far, we have Arabs on TV threatening Dubbya's life and we have Iranian gunboats provoking US warships. We really ought to keep a list of all of this. I have a feeling it's going to grow now. We are going to see spin on spin reporting.
To think, this is happening right before the election. Now, who would everybody vote for when all of this is going on?
I would vote for anyone but Bush. He has started World War III and he is gonna dump it into someone elses lap. Just so that his party can take power back in the next election.
How sad that people's lives are that worthless to him.
What a disgusting excuse for a human being.
"He has started World War III "
He must have ordered the twin towers to be done. How did he do that???
Think before you make such ridiculous comments.
'' He must have ordered the twin towers to be done. How did he do that???''
you really really really don't want to ask that question...
Toooooooo late, he did.......
bush and cheney want war.. perhaps they feel this can save the US economy from imploding.. their thinking is irrational and everyone that believe the crap out of the white house need to reassess their state of mind.. stop the true terrorists, bush and cheney..
this war has nothing to do with saving the economy, it has everything to do with raping the economy.
They know that by enriching themselves and their cronies to a massive level using war, nobody will be able to stop them til its too late. And even then, they will be so rich they will be part of the permanent American royalty and they will be untouchable.
This war has helped certain aspects of our economy.
The U.S. has gone from being the greatest industrial power in the world, to being the biggest debtor nation in the world.
This has been accomplished in one generation!!!!
My oil stocks are doing great.
No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
I'm betting that people will continue believing what they want, and ignoring all the facts. SO far I have been right.
"perhaps they feel this can save the US economy from imploding."
--Chimper's first 7 years in office were marked by failure after failure. He is now making ever more sad, desperate and futile attempts to salvage his legacy. When the best he could possibly hope for is to leave a breathtakingly disgraceful legacy behind rather than a cosmically horrendous one, I really can't imagine why he'd bother.
Only a fool would argue with a fool. Obviously there is no need to answer.
Hamy, you obviously being the fool here were the one who said that Bush started WWIII and is going to dump it in someone elses lap. As if a war this big could be started and finished in such a short amount of time for it not to be handed down to someone else.
What we need to do is elect someone who does not view this war as something being dumped into their lap, but a war that they look forward to winning.
tanglang: "As if a war this big could be started and finished in such a short amount of time"
How long did WWII last?
Were we fighting against a worldwide islamic jihad during WWII?
"In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman"
"The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
We have walked this path before.
I think we screwed up then. At the time there where some folks that felt we should be more like China and let those that wished to do business with us, come to us and trade.
Why spend so much treasure and honor protecting the interests of merchants and traders when our resources where available without the risk?
Tanglang,
No, the world was fighting against the German, Japanese and Italian empires. Even if the "worldwide Islamic jihad" existed, it would not amount to much more than a couple enemy platoons in World War II. If you were a government sock puppet, you would not resort to such a ridiculous argument, so what is your motive?
The World was fighting an organized military back in WWII. Not a terrorist oranization who looks just like everybody else in that region. If we were fighting them on a battle field, their weapons and troops against our, the war would have been over in seconds.
I don't even want to know what the hell you think a government sock puppet is.
The kind of
fighting
you describe
emerged in the
post-WW2 period
when nations
had the
opportunity
to free
themselves from
European
imperialism,
then weakened
by that war.
This 'war' is
not that much
different.
A government sock
puppet is psyops -
psychological
operations.
A government
euphemism
for propaganda.
What about Vietnam then? Extremely similar situations. Dumped in the lab of another president who had to pull us out of a quagmire.
This war was a mistake and it will cost our great nation for the rest of our lives.
Candida:
"How long did WWII last?"
At least 8 years, 1937 to 1945, though I recall story to the effect that it just ended recently.
A couple of Japanese combatants continued resistance until 2005, and I think the final treaty on different national status was signed in the last 10 or 15 years.
All right, I'll give you 1937 even though the first two years were an Asian conflict only, and the official starting date was September 1, 1939. I guess the current wars with two measly little countries should be over then in a couple of years.
(I've heard stories that WWII ended lickety-split as soon as the US entered it and saved the whole world.)
"Two measly little countries", Japan and Germany, made WWII the love fest it was, so don't be putting down two countries.
Instead of counting days, why don't you count bodies? Look at the destruction rained down on people over the period of WWII and that over the period of Iraq, and understand we are not fighting the same kind of war, and that the time table just might be different.
In WWII we went ahead and carpet bombed the civilians into submission, as opposed to wringing our hands over each death. If you would like us to use those rules of engagement, call Bush up and let him know your support.
Otherwise, understand the differences between the wars, and the limits that we put on ourselves. We could have owned Iraq, but we were not willing to pay the price, in terms of Iraqi blood.
Thank you for making these points for me. I won't go back to WWII, even though I'm very aware of what's happened then.
I agree with you completely that these wars are different, but that was foreseeable. The mighty Soviet Union could not keep Afghanistan, even though it was in its own backyard, and before the Iraq war started, there were cries about entering a Vietnam-like quagmire. Bush didn't want to hear it. He claimed that this was completely different because there was no jungle in Iraq, only a desert. Dick Cheney expected roses, and to some extent got them in the first few weeks.
What they didn't understand or, more likely didn't admit to understanding, was that liberators turn very quickly into occupiers if the liberators don't leave quickly. Have you seen Cheney's interview in which he explains why Iraq wasn't occupied in 1991? The same factors are in play today.
Guerrilla wars are unwinnable without the support of the locals.
History shows that we had the VC and NVA on the ropes after TET-68, that they were totally unprepared for the shellacking they took. Their doctrine said that the people would rise up against us, and throw off the capitalist oppressors, and doctrine must always be right, even when it is wrong, so they got whacked.
But Cronkite declared defeat, and everyone insisted we go home. Now the surge is working - not entirely because of the surge, very much because, as you said was required, the locals have decided that AQ is not the best choice to have around, and started shooting them instead of us.
And again, we are having the media declaring defeat, and the libs demanding we go home.
I don't know any Iraqis, but I did know some North-Vietnamese personally during the Vietnam war. They were ready to fight to the last person. I deliberately used the word person rather than man because they were all ready to fight, men, women and children. You could win only battles there, not the war, unless you were willing to exterminate the whole North-Vietnamese population.
Do you ever ask what that war was for? Even if you had won, would it have been worth the destruction of several countries in the process?
If/when the Iraqis decide to have peace, there will be peace, but don't be fooled by the lull in the violence. Occupation is occupation, and they probably feel the same way as you would if some other country tried to liberate you.
I did not say we were going to take over North Vietnam.
We had the NVA on the ropes in RVN. The NVA had the VC on the ropes so they would get no arguments about reunification.
"Do you ever ask what that war was for?"
It was a show of resolve. It was specifically about showing the Red Menace that we would not simply allow them to take over the world.
"Even if you had won, would it have been worth the destruction of several countries in the process?"
To who? As it turned out, yes. The Petit Lao and the Khmer Rouge would not have had their time in the sun, killing anyone with more than an elementary school education.
If we had won, it could have forced the dissolution of the USSR at an earlier date, saving a lot of money for a number of economies, and, by proxy, the citizens of those countries.
It could have kept China from taking the more aggressive posture it has been taking lately.
It would have kept Carter out of the WH, and Iran might be a better place.
"(I've heard stories that WWII ended lickety-split as soon as the US entered it and saved the whole world.)"
You never heard that in the Rodina! The Great Patriotic War was won by the blood sweat and tears of Soviet Man! The rest was a side show!
Or by the Blood Sweat and Tears of the Brits (who came up with the phrase), with minor support from some others, not sure what their names were.
Every one has a story to tell, and for everyone, it is from their perspective, and favors them.
For the US, the story is about the bleak days of 42 and 43, when we thought we would lose, followed by the rising tide of victory in 44 and 45. If people tell you otherwise, it is at the expense of the truth, and does not include official US Military branch histories.
WoW Tangy and not but 4 years ago it seems all you righties were predicting victory in WEEKS. Oh and please spare us all the BS about we meant Iraq ALL that does is highlight that poor planning and lack of foresight that seems to run rampant in the administration.
HOLY CRAP, a post from dunkirk that did NOT start with "ROFLMAO"! Dunny, I am saving this page. Good show.
Now to the point, I was not predicting victory in weeks. As a matter of fact, the people who were, were predicting that the Iraqi army would be defeated in weeks. Which they were. What those people did not plan for was the insurgency that followed. Right now Iraq is just one of osamas battlefields. There was PBS Frontline show about osama a couple years ago that quoted osama saying months before we went to war in Iraq that Iraq would be one of his two major battle fields.
No one could ever predict what would happen. To be honest, no one wanted to. No one wanted to be the one to say that this is a war with millions of islamic nazis that will last decades because every time we kill one, two more take his place. No one wanted to be that guy. Nor did they want to be the one to say that not fighting will only make things worse.
Perhaps you weren't making specific predictions, but take a look at all the people who have done so.
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/08/08/i...
oh no??.."This war will be paid for with Iraqui oil"
Donald Rumsfeld March 2003
"They will be throwing parades and welcoming us as liberating victors" Cheney April 2003
"Mission accomplished" Bush may 2003...
Need more????
No one wanted to predict? Odd when you commit a nation to war you had better be predicting the consequences.
Please.
There is no winning. We could never win and will never win because no one even can tell me what winning means. Do you know? You have never put it in words to me. Each time I ask, you simply say bringing democracy to Iraq which we already did. You have dodged the question by saying that you don't need to answer it in the past as well.
What does it mean?
Let me explain:
{'' He must have ordered the twin towers to be done. How did he do that???''
you really really really don't want to ask that question...}
You don't want to ask that question unless you want a 300 post diversion about the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, and another 300 posts about how there is no evidence, and another 300 posts about how there IS evidence, and another 300 about how coincidences and circumstanial evidence is not enough, and another 300 about...
I can ALWAYS think of a reasonable answer and articulate it at least marginally well...that's my thang
'How did he do that' should not be pursued without more than circumstantial evidence, as even if it WAS done, we are better served dealing with the fallout than the event, because what's done is done, and no matter what the last 6 years won't change and the dead won't get to come back, whether or not it was done, let alone 'how'.
I insist that you explain away the fact that the Twin Trade Towers were destroyed with explosives, along with WTC7 and WTC6. To call the facts "circustantial evidence," is a lie. It is as certain as anything can be, and anyone who ever made a genuine effort to examine the evidence on the Internet, knows it.
I also want you to explain the destruction of WTC7, which no one pretends was hit by a jet. Larry Silverstein admitted that he said, "pull it." Don't tell me you believe his ridiculous retraction. Furthermore, the BBC announced the destruction of WTC7 26 minutes in advance, and they parroted the absurd cover story that it was weakened by fire. Perhaps, someone was trying to send a message.
As a last resort, you claim that it does not matter after six years if our government did carry out the terrorism. You must really be desparate to resort to THAT argument.
'as certain as anything can be'?
as certain as death and taxes?
'I also want you to explain the destruction of WTC7'
My dad as we drove by a McDonald's when I was a kid:
Hey, you want a Big Mac?
(me) hey, yeah!
(my dad) Well how does it feel to want? *steps on gas pedal*
You know, I never really did get his senswe of humor...
what you are treading on is for another thread, which was my whole point. Isn't there also some thing about proving a negative assertion? I can't prove the tooth fairy didn't commit 9/11 etc. It's UP to YOU to prove your positive assertion, not me.
But see I made no real assertion, except that the circumstances surrounding 9/11 are suspicious.
Someone saying they heard a gunshot isn't enough, and a neighbor who has a gun and motive is not enough, you have to tie it all together, ballistics, a body, time and whereabouts, etc
'' the evidence on the Internet''
the actual evidence isn't ON the internet. those are pictures and words, not actual things like explosive residue, timers, etc.
Boy this is the most I've engaged in this argument. I feel exposed
The "words" on the internet reveal the physical evidence, including steel melted by thermate, and sometimes photographs and video tapes ARE evidence. Nor did I ask you to prove a negative, but to disprove all the positive proof that the buildings were destroyed by explosives.
Why is there a conspiracy to suppress all of the evidence, including live television broadcasts from the World Trade Center? Why is it necessary to suppress all opposing opinions? Why are people like you so desperate to deny the obvious? Why do you resort to such feeble arguments? Are my posts that effective? Are Bush and Cheney afraid of me?
hell, I said the circumstances surrounding 9/11 were 'suspicious, what do you want?
If you want confirm your own suspicions with 'internet evidence, that's up to you.
But to say such a thing is, what was it, 'as certain as can be[?]' is a bit of a stretch. I tend to be more skeptical than that. As for my feeble arguments, they're feeble to you because you think I'm arguing with you and I'm not, and that I'm locked into a '9/11 wasn't an inside job' position, when I'm just a skeptic.
If I wanted to fill up this thread with argument, I could. That would be torrent29 or one of your other anti-CT nemises you're looking for.
I admit I judged you unfairly. I thought you were another Stalinist conspiracy denier.
Endoscopy, why is his comment ridiculous?
Have you never read any freedom of information documents about our cia?
You can go back before the spanish american war even before the cia existed, we have had our hands in and started many wars to achieve our objectives.
I have always supported my country and my government but not when our government is starting wars to make money for the elite, I'm sorry I can't support that. The left and right are guilty of this by the way.
Maybe there are no documents linking Bush directly to 911 but he didn't do anything to stop it, so yeah I believe he is guilty.
Plausible deniability.
So, is clinton guilty of not stopping the several al qeada attacks that took place on our soil during his presidency?
Was Roosevelt guilty for not stopping Pearl Harbor? Do you realize how rediculous your statement is?
Besides, there is absolutely no truth to your other statement about our government starting wars to make money for the elite either.
Of course not. We went into Iraq to rid them of evil Saddam. Killed some 100,000 Iraqis up until now. Saddam's dead. Why are we still there? Cause we'll bring democracy to the dead right?
Anna, that has to be the most rediculous statement of the day.
Tang
So in your expert opinion why are we there? Are you denying thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war?
For the Flowers?
Don't forget the cake.
And the candy too.